{"id":180309,"date":"1998-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998"},"modified":"2015-12-01T23:10:15","modified_gmt":"2015-12-01T17:40:15","slug":"bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998","title":{"rendered":"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 14 July, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 14 July, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, S. Saghir Ahmad<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBAKELITE HYLAM LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t14\/07\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t  [WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2448-51 of 1986]
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.C. AGRAWAL, J.:\n<\/p>\n
     M\/s Bakelite  Hylam Limited,  the\tappellant  in  these
\nappeals,  [hereinafter\t referred  to  as  ‘the\t appellant],
\nmanufactures laminated\tboards and  sheets.   The  laminated
\nsheets\tare  paper  based  and\tglass  fabric  based.\t For
\nmanufacturing paper  based laminated  sheet paper  is passed
\nthrough or  immersed in\t a resin  bath (phenol\tformaldehyde
\nresin) and  as a result the paper is impregnated with resin.
\nThis paper  is then  dried.   The paper which is impregnated
\nwith resin is known as ‘Prepeg-P’.  Layers of ‘Prepeg-P’ are
\nthen stacked  and the  sheets so  stacked are  then  pressed
\ntogether in  a hydraulic press applying pressure and heat to
\nmake a laminated sheet.\t The process of manufacturing cotton
\nfabric and  glass fabric  based laminated sheets is similar.
\nIn case\t of cotton  fabric  based  laminated  sheets  cotton
\nfabric is  impregnated with  resin and\tdried.\tSuch  fabric
\nwhich is  so impregnated is known as ‘Prepeg-F’.  It is also
\ndescribed as  ‘Prepeg-C’.   In glass  fabric based laminated
\nsheets glass  fabric  is  impregnated  with  resin  and\t the
\nimpregnated sheet  is known  as ‘Prepeg-G’.    The  question
\nwhich fails  for consideration\tin  these  appeals  is\twith
\nregard to  the classification  of  these  products,  namely,
\n‘Prepeg-P’, ‘Prepeg-F  and ‘Prepeg-G’,\tfor the\t purpose  of
\nlevy of\t excise duty  under  the  erstwhile  Central  Excise
\nTariff [hereinafter  referred to  as ‘the Tariff’] contained
\nin the\tFirst Schedule\tto the\tCentral excises\t & Slat Act,
\n1944.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Central   Excise  and\t  Gold\t(Control)  Appellate
\nTribunal [hereinafter  referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] in its
\njudgment dated\tmarch 25,  1986\t has  held  that  ‘Prepeg-F’
\n(described as ‘Prepeg-C’) is assessable under Tariff Item 19
\n(III), ‘Prepeg-P’  is assessable under Tariff Item 17(2) and
\n‘Prepeg-G’ is  assessable under\t Tariff\t Item  22-F  of\t the
\nTariff.\t  Civil Appeals Nos. 2448-51 of 1986 have been filed
\nby the appellant against the said judgment of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     The matter\t came up  for consideration  again before  a
\nBench of three Members of the Tribunal and by judgment dated
\nJune 3,\t 1991 the  Tribunal by\tmajority [Shri\tG. Sankaran,
\nPresident and Shri N.K. Bajpai, Member (Technical)] took the
\nsame view  as that  taken by  the Tribunal  in\tthe  earlier
\njudgment dated\tMarch  25,1986\tand  held  that\t ‘Prepeg-P’,
\n‘Prepeg-F fell\tunder Items 17(1),19(III) and 22-F(4) of the
\nTariff respectively.  Shri S.L.\t Peeran, Member\t (Judicial),
\nhowever, took  a different  view  and  held  that  the\tsaid
\nproducts could\tnot be\tclassified under  the aforementioned
\nItems of  the Tariff  and were assessable under the residual
\nentry in Item 68 of the Tariff.\t Civil Appeal Nos. 2676-2678
\nof 1992\t have been  filed by  the appellant against the said
\njudgment of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     We will  first take up ‘Prepeg-F which has been held to
\nfall under  Item 19(III)  of the  Tariff.  In the Tariff, as
\napplicable in  the year\t 1977-78 (period  relevant for Civil
\nAppeals Nos. 2448-51 of 1985), Item 19(III) read as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “COTTON FABRICS
\n     “Cotton\tfabrics”    means    all
\n     varieties\tof  manufactured  either
\n     wholly or\tpartly from  cotton  and
\n     includes dhoties  sarees, chadders,
\n     bed-sheets,  bed-spreads,\tcounter-
\n     panes, table-cloths,  embroidery in
\n     the piece,\t in strips  or in motifs
\n     and fabrics  impregnated, coated or
\n     laminated\twith   preparations   of
\n     cellulose derivatives  or of  other
\n     artificial\t plastic  materials  but
\n     does not include any such fabric if
\n     it contains-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) 40  per cent  or more by weight
\n\t  of wool;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) 40  per cent or more by weight
\n\t  of silk;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) 60 per cent or more by weight
\n\t  of rayon  or artificial  silk;
\n\t  or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) 50  per cent or more weight of
\n\t  jute (including Bilipatam jute
\n\t  or mesta fibre):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t in the\t case of
\n     embroidery in  the piece, in strips
\n     or\t  in\tmotifs\t  and\t fabrics
\n     impregnated,  coated  or  laminated
\n     with  preparations\t  of   cellulose
\n     derivatives or  of other artificial
\n     plastic materials,\t the percentages
\n     referred to  in (i)  and (iv) above
\n     shall be  in relation  to the  base
\n     fibrics which  are\t embroidered  or
\n     impregnated or  coated, as the case
\n     may be.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     III.  Cotton  fabrics  impregnated,
\n     coated    or     laminated\t    with
\n     preparations      of      cellulose
\n     derivatives or  of other artificial
\n     plastic materials.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  year 1984-85 (period relevant for Civil Appeals
\nNos. 2676-2678\tof 1992)  there was  some change in the main
\npart but the same has no bearing because there was no change
\nin clause  III of  Item 19. Item 19(III), as amended, was in
\nthese terms:\n<\/p>\n
     “COTTON FABRICS
\n     ‘Cotton\tfabrics’    means    all
\n     varieties of  fabrics  manufactured
\n     either wholly or partly from cotton
\n     and   includes   dhoties,\t sarees,
\n     chadders, bed-sheets,  bed-spreads,
\n     counter-panes,\t   table-cloths,
\n     embroidery in  the piece, in strips
\n     or in  motifs, fabrics impregnated,
\n     coated    or     laminated\t    with
\n     preparations      of      cellulose
\n     derivatives or  of other artificial
\n     plastic   materials   and\t fabrics
\n     covered  partially\t or  fully  with
\n     textile flocks or with preparations
\n     containing textile\t flocks, if  (i)
\n     in such fabrics cotton predominates
\n     in weight,\t or  (ii)  such\t fabrics
\n     contain more  than 40  per cent  by
\n     weight of cotton and 50 per cent or
\n     more by  weight  of  non-cellulosic
\n     fibres or yarn or both:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t in the\t case of
\n     embroidery in  the piece, in strips
\n     or in  motifs, fabrics impregnated,
\n     coated    or     laminated\t    with
\n     preparations      of      cellulose
\n     derivatives or  of other artificial
\n     plastic  materials,   and\t fabrics
\n     covered  partially\t or  fully  with
\n     textile flocks or with preparations
\n     containing textile\t flocks or  with
\n     preparations containing  textile or
\n     percentages, as  the case\tmay  be,
\n     shall be  in relations  to the base
\n     fabrics which  are\t embroidered  or
\n     impregnated, coated or laminated or
\n     covered, as the case may be-
\n     (III)Cotton  fabrics   impregnated,
\n\t  coated   or\tlaminated   with
\n\t  preparations\t of    cellulose
\n\t  derivatives\tor    of   other
\n\t  artificial plastic materials.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Before the\t Tribunal it  was urged\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  that\t  ‘Prepeg-F,  which  is\t impregnated  cotton
\nfabric, cannot\tbe regarded  as cotton\tfabric falling under
\nItem 19(III)  of the  Tariff.\tIt was\talso urged that Item
\n19(III) refers\tto cotton  fabrics  impregnated,  coated  or
\nlaminated with\tpreparations of\t cellulose derivations or of
\nother plastic  materials and  that the\tmaterials with which
\n‘Prepeg-F is  impregnated are  not plastic  materials.\t The
\nTribunal has  rejected the said contention and has held that
\nit  could   not\t be   proved  that  the\t proportion  of\t the
\nimpregnated materials  had  reached  such  a  level  in\t the
\nimpregnated fabrics  that the  final product  had ceased  to
\ncontain the characteristics of a fabric so as to take it out
\nof the\tpurview of  the cotton\tfabric as  set out  in\tItem
\n19(III) of  the Tariff.\t  The  Tribunal was of the view that
\nthe term  “cotton fabric”  covers a  wide range.  As regards
\nthe submission that phenol formaldehyde resin with which the
\nfabric\tis  impregnated\t is  not  a  plastic  material,\t the
\nTribunal  held\t that  the  expression\t“artificial  plastic
\nmaterials” in Item 19(III) embraces within itself resin also
\nsince plastic is a generic term and as understood in popular
\nsense it covers resin.\n<\/p>\n
     The said  finding recorded\t by the\t Tribunal  has\tbeen
\nassailed by  Shri J.  Vellapally, the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the appellant. Shri Vellapally has invoked the
\n‘common parlance  test’ and  has submitted  that  in  common
\nparlance ‘Prepeg-F cannot be regarded as cotton fabric.\t The
\nlearned counsel\t has placed reliance on the decision of this
\ncourt in  Purewal Associates  Ltd. V.  Collector of  Central
\nExcise,<\/a> 1996  (10) SCC\t752. We do not fine any substance in
\nthe  said   contention\tof   shri  Vellapally.\t In  Purewal
\nAssociated Ltd.\t [supra] this  court has  taken note  of the
\nearlier decision  in Plasmac  machine Mfg.  Co. (P)  Ltd. v.
\nCollector of  Central Excise,<\/a> 1991 supp. (1) SCC 57, wherein
\nit was\theld that  ‘where definition  of a word has not been
\ngiven, it  must be  construed in its popular sense”. So also
\nin M\/s\tIndo International  Industries\tv.  Commissioner  of
\nSales Tax, Uttar Pradesh,<\/a> 1981 (2) SCC 528, it has been held
\nthat “if  any term  or expression  has been  defined in\t the
\nenactment then\tit must\t be understood in the sense in which
\nit is  defined but  in the  absence of\tany definition being
\ngiven in  the enactment\t the meaning  of the  term in common
\nparlance or  commercial parlance has to be adopted”. [p.530]
\nIn term\t 19 the expression “cotton fabrics” has been defined
\nto include  “fabrics impregnated  coated or  laminated\twith
\npreparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial
\nplastic material”.  In view  of the  inclusive clause in the
\ndefinition of  “cotton fabrics”\t contained  in\tItem  19  it
\ncannot be  said that  ‘Prepeg-G’ which is impregnated cotton
\nfabric cannot  be regarded  as cotton fabric for the purpose
\nof Item 19(III) of the Tariff.\n<\/p>\n
     Item 19(III)  came up  for consideration before a Bench
\nof three  Judges of  this  Court  in  Collector\t of  Central
\nExcise, Hyderabad  v. Fenoplast (P) Ltd.,<\/a> 1994 supp. (2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
678. In\t that case,  the question  was whether\trexine cloth
\nwhich was  manufactured by coating of cotton fabric with PVC
\nresin, plasticizers  and other\tmaterials could\t be held  to
\nfall  under  Item  19(III)  of\tthe  Tariff.\tOne  of\t the
\ncontentions urged  on behalf of the manufacturer was that in
\ninterpreting the  meaning of  the words\t in a taxing statute
\nlike the  Excise Act,  the meaning  assigned to the words by
\nthe trade and its popular meaning should be accepted and the
\ntest to\t be applied  is to see how the product is identified
\nby the class or section of people who deal in the product or
\nwho use the product. The said contention was rejected by the
\nCourt on  the view that the said proposition is applied only
\nwhen the  words in  question are  not defined in the Act and
\nreliance was  placed on\t the observations  aforementioned in
\nthe case  of M\/s  Indo International Industries [supra]. The
\ncontention that\t after coating\tthe cotton  fabric no longer
\nretains its  identity  as  cotton  fabric  and\tthat  a\t new
\ndistinct commodity  emerges as\ta result  of coating and the
\nresulting product  cannot be  regarded as  cotton fabric was
\nrejected and it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
     “This argument  does not  take into
\n     account the  fact\tthat  Parliament
\n     has   chosen    to\t  include    the
\n     coated\/laminated fabrics within the
\n     ambit  and\t  purview   of\t ‘cotton
\n     fabrics’ and  parliament’s power to
\n     do\t so   is  not\tquestioned   and
\n     probably cannot  be questioned. The
\n     fact remains  that to start with it
\n     is\t a   cotton  cloth   upon  which
\n     certain   coating\t  material    is
\n     applied.” [p.687]
\n     In\t Fenoplast   (P)  Ltd.\t [supra]  this\t Court\talso
\nconsidered the\tquestion whether PVC resin that was used for
\ncoating the  cotton fabric  could  be  regarded\t as  plastic
\nmaterial for  the purpose  of Item  19(III) and\t it was held
\nthat PVC  resin is also a plastic since synthetic resin is a
\npolymer itself\twhile plastic is polymer plus such additives
\nas fillers, coloured plasticizers, etc. Insofar as ‘Prepeg-F
\nis assessable under Item 19(III) of the Tariff.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We may  now come  to ‘Prepeg-P’  which has been held to
\nfall under  Item  17  of  the  Tariff.\tIn  1977-78  [period
\nrelevant for Civil Appeal Nos. 2448-2451 of 1986] Item 17(2)
\nof the Tariff was in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Paper and\t Paper Board,  All Sorts
\n     (including\t pasteboard,  millboard,
\n     straw-board,     cardboard\t     and
\n     corrugated\t  board,)   in\t or   in
\n     relation  to   the\t manufacture  of
\n     which  any\t process  is  ordinarily
\n     carried on with the aid of power-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     x\t    x\t   x\tx\tx
\n     (2)  Paper\t board\t and  all  other
\n\t  kinds\t of   paper   (including
\n\t  paper or  paper  boards  which
\n\t  have been subjected to various
\n\t  treatments  such  as\tcoating,
\n\t  impregnating,\t    corrugation,
\n\t  creping and  design printing),
\n\t  not elsewhere specified.”
\nIn 1984-85  [period relevant  for Civil\t Appeal\t Nos.  2676-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2678\/92] Item 17 of the Tariff read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Paper and\t Paper Board,  all Sorts
\n     (including paste-board, mill-board,
\n     straw-board,     cardboard\t     and
\n     corrugated\t board)\t  and\tarticles
\n     thereof specified\tbelow, in  or in
\n     relation  to   the\t manufacture  of
\n     which  any\t process  is  ordinarily
\n     carried on with the aid of power-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)   Paper    and\t  paper\t  board,
\n\t  (including  paper   or   paper
\n\t  boards   which    have    been
\n\t  subjected\t to\t various
\n\t  treatments  such  as\tcoating,
\n\t  impregnating,\t    corrugation,
\n\t  creping and  design printing),
\n\t  not elsewhere specified.
\n\t  x\t x    x\t\t    x”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Before the Tribunal it was urged that ‘Prepeg-P’ is not
\nknown as  paper in  the industry  and  as  such\t it  is\t not
\nassessable under  Item 17  of the Tariff. Rejecting the said
\ncontention the\tTribunal held  that Item  17(2)\/17(1) covers
\nall categories\tof impregnated\tpaper and  that ‘impregnated
\npaper’ has  been expressly included in Item 17(2)\/(1) by the
\nword “including”.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri vellapally  has assailed  the\t said  view  of\t the
\nTribunal and has placed reliance on the minority judgment of
\nthe Judicial  Member of\t the Tribunal  wherein reference has
\nbeen made  to the  Trade  Advice  No.  51\/75  dated  October
\n31,1975 issued\tby the\tCentral Board of Excise and Customs,
\nto the\teffect that “treated paper which is claimed to be an
\nintermediary product  in the  manufacture of  decorative and
\nlaminates sheets  falling under\t Tariff item  15A of Central
\nExcise Tariff  is not  classifiable under  Tariff Item 17 of
\nCentral Tariff”. We are unable to accept the said contention
\nof Shri\t Vellapally passed  on the said Trade Advice because
\nshortly thereafter  the Central Board of Excise and Customs,
\nin its\tletter No. 61\/13\/76-cx 2, dated October 13,1976, has
\nexpressed the  view that  resin impregnated  paper which  is
\nmarketable would  merit\t classification\t under\tTariff\tItem
\n17(2). The  same view  was repeated  by the Central Board of
\nExcise and  Customs, Tariff  Advice No.\t 2\/84 dated  January
\n12,1984 wherein\t it was stated that craft paper subjected to
\nthe process  of impregnation  with synthetic  resins for the
\nmanufacture of\tplastic\t laminated  sheets  is\tclassifiable
\nunder Tariff  Item 17(2) as converted paper and eligible for
\nexemption  under   Notification\t 63\/82-C.E.   dated  28.2.82
\nsubject to the condition stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Vellapally  has also\tsubmitted  that\t impregnated
\npaper is  different from ‘Prepeg-P’ because impregnate paper
\ndoes not  cease to  remain paper, while ‘Prepeg-P’ cannot be
\nregarded as  paper and\thas invited  our  attention  to\t the
\nExplanatory  Notes   (Vol.2)  to  the  Harmonised  Commodity
\nDescription and\t coding\t system\t published  by\tCustoms\t Co-
\noperation Council, Brussels wherein it is stated:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Impregnated Paper and Paperboard
\n\t  Most\tof   these  papers   and
\n     paperboards   are\t  obtained    by
\n     treatment\t with\t oils,\t  waxes,
\n     plastics, etc., in such a manner as
\n     to\t permeate  them\t and  give  them
\n     special qualities\t(e.g. to  render
\n     them waterproof,  greaseproof,  and
\n     sometimes\t    translucent\t      or
\n     transparent). They are used largely
\n     for  protective   wrapping\t or   as
\n     insulating materials.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Impregnated\t  papers     and
\n     paperboards include, oiled wrapping
\n     paper,  oiled   or\t waxed\tmanifold
\n     paper,  stencil   paper,  indicator
\n     papers  such  as  litmus  or  pole-
\n     finding  papers,  insulating  paper
\n     and paperboard  impregnated,  e.g.,
\n     with  plastics,  rubberised  paper,
\n     paper   and    paperboard\t  merely
\n     impregnated with tar or bitumen.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Certain   papers    such    as
\n     wallpaper base  may be  impregnated
\n     with  insecticides\t or  chemicals.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9pp. 667-668, First Edition (1986)]
\n     It is  no doubt true that impregnated paper referred to
\nin  the\t said  notes  is  one  which  is  used\tlargely\t for
\nprotective wrapping  or as insulating materials. But it does
\nnot mean  that paper which is impregnated with resin for the
\npurpose of manufacturing laminated sheets cannot be regarded
\nas impregnated paper under item 17(2)\/17(1) of the Tariff.\n<\/p>\n
     ‘Prepeg-G’ has been held to fall under Item 22F\/22-F(4)
\nof the Tariff. In 1977-78 [period relevant for Civil Appeal
\nNos. 2448-2451\/86] Item 22 of the Tariff read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Mineral Fibres
\n     Mineral  fibres   and  yarns,   and
\n     manufactures therefrom,  in  or  in
\n     relation  to   the\t manufacture  of
\n     which  any\t process  is  ordinarily
\n     carries on with the aid of power.
\n     Explanation I.- “Mineral fibres and
\n     yarns, and\t manufactures therefrom”
\n     shall be deemed to include-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  glass fibre and yarn including
\n\t  glass tissues and glasswool;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) asbestos fibre and yarn;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) any\tother mineral  fibre  of
\n\t  yarn,\t whether  continuous  or
\n\t  otherwise  such  as  slag-wool
\n\t  and rock-wool; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) manufactures\tin which mineral
\n\t  fibres   or\tyarn   or   both
\n\t  predominate or predominates in
\n\t  weight.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation II.- this item does not
\n     include asbestos cement products.”
\n     In 1984-85 [period relevant for Civil Appeal Nos. 2676-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2678\/92] Item 22F(4) was in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Mineral Fibres
\n     Mineral fibres  and yarn  and other
\n     manufactures therefrom,  in  or  in
\n     relation  to   the\t manufacture  of
\n     which  any\t process  is  ordinarily
\n     carried on\t with the  aid of power,
\n     the following, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     x\t\t  x    x\t       x
\n     (4)  Other\t manufactures  in  which
\n\t  mineral fibres or yarn or both
\n\t  predominate or predominates in
\n\t  weight.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Shri Vellapally  has submitted  that  Item\t 22-F\/22F(4)
\nrefers to  mineral fibres  and yarn  and other\tmanufactures
\ntherefrom in  or in relation to the manufacture of which any
\nprocess is  ordinarily carried\ton with the aid or power and
\nthat glass  fabric, which  is made  out of mineral fibre and
\nyarn would fall under item 22-F of the Tariff, but ‘Prepeg-G
\nwhich is obtained by impregnation of glass fabrics would not
\nfall within  the ambit\tof Item\t 22-F because  it is neither
\nmineral fibres or yarn nor is it a product manufactured from
\nmineral fibres\tor yarn.  In support of this submission Shri
\nVellapally has placed reliance on the decision of this Court
\nin Mahindra  Engineering and  Chemical Products Ltd.v. Union
\nof India  & Ors. 1992 (1) SCC 727. In that case the question
\nwas whether  tubular shaped  are chamber housings which were
\nmanufactured from glass fabrics purchased from manufacturers
\nwere  assessable   to  duty  under  Item  22-F(4)  or  under
\nresiduary Item\t68 of  the First  Schedule  to\tthe  Central
\nExcises and  Salt Act,\t1944. This  Court held that the said
\nproduct did not fall under Item 22-F(4) and that it would be
\nassessable under residuary Item 68. It was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
     The entry\tis in  two  parts,  one,
\n     descriptive    and\t    the\t   other
\n     explanatory. Both\tare to\tbe  read
\n     together to bring out the scope and
\n     extent of\tits applicability fully.
\n     The first\tdeclares the items which
\n     are   assessable\tto   duty.   But
\n     restricts\tit   to\t only  those  in
\n     relation  to   the\t manufacture  of
\n     which  any\t process  is  ordinarily
\n     carried on\t with the  aid of power.
\n     Having thus specified the items and
\n     the condition  on which it would be
\n     covered in the entry it proceeds to
\n     amplify it\t in the\t second part  by
\n     using the\twords ‘following namely’
\n     thus explaining the items that were
\n     intended  to  be  covered\tin  this
\n     entry. Use of expressions ‘namely’,
\n     or ‘that  is to  say’  followed  by
\n     description  of  goods  is\t usually
\n     exhaustive unless\tthere are strong
\n     indications   to\t the   contrary.
\n     Language of  serial No.  4 is plain
\n     and simple.  It intends  to clarify
\n     the     expression\t    ‘manufacture
\n     therefrom’\t by   expanding\t it   to
\n     include in\t its  ambit  even  those
\n     manufactures in which fibre or yarn
\n     predominated in  weight. But it did
\n     not go  beyond it\tand purported to
\n     include   manufactures    out    of
\n     manufacture of a commodity in which
\n     mineral fibre or yarn predominated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “[pp. 729, 730.]
\n     “Thus glass fabric manufactured out
\n     of mineral\t fibre is  assessable to
\n     duty under\t Item 4\t but are chamber
\n     housing  manufactured   from  glass
\n     fabric cannot be placed at par with
\n     glass   fabric    and   cannot   be
\n     considered as  ‘other  manufacture’
\n     of glass fibre or yarn.” [p.730]
\n     In\t view\tthe  decision  of  this\t Court\tin  Mahindra
\nEngineering and\t Chemical Products  Ltd. [supra]  it must be
\nheld that  ‘Pregpeg-G’ manufactured from glass fabrics would
\nnot fall  in Item  22-F\/22-F(4) as found by the Tribunal and
\nthat ‘Prepeg-G’\t was assessable\t to excise  duty during\t the
\nrelevant   period under residuary Item 68 of the Tariff. The
\nimpugned judgment  of the Tribunal in so far as it held that
\nPrepeg-G under\tItem 22-F\/22-F(4)  of the  Tariff cannot  be
\nupheld and has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, the  appeals are partly allowed and the
\nimpugned judgment  of the  Tribunal to\tthe extent they hold
\nthat ‘Prepeg-G’ manufactured by the appellant was assessable
\nto excise  duty at the relevant time under Item 22-\/F22-F(4)
\nof the\tTariff are  set aside and it is held that ‘Prepeg-G’
\nwas assessable\tto duty\t under\tresiduary  Item\t 68  of\t the
\nTariff. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 14 July, 1998 Author: S Agrawal Bench: S.C. Agrawal, S. Saghir Ahmad PETITIONER: BAKELITE HYLAM LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/07\/1998 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: [WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2448-51 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 14 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 14 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-01T17:40:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 14 July, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-01T17:40:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3246,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998\",\"name\":\"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 14 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-01T17:40:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 14 July, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 14 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 14 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-01T17:40:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 14 July, 1998","datePublished":"1998-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-01T17:40:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998"},"wordCount":3246,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998","name":"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 14 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-01T17:40:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakelite-hylam-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-14-july-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bakelite Hylam Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise, … on 14 July, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180309","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}